United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest Service
Pacific Northwest
Research Station
General Technical
Report
PNW-GTR-670
March 2006
The Pacific Northwest
Research Station’s
Biodiversity Initiative:
Collaborating for
Biodiversity Management
Peter Nelson, Rachel White, Randy Molina
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle
of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of
wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation
with the States and private forest owners, and management of the national forests
and national grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly
greater service to a growing Nation.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and
where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual
orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an
individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited
bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means
for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,
1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800)
795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider
and employer.
Authors
Peter Nelson is a graduate student, College of Forest Resources and Evans
School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, Box 352100, Seattle, WA
98195. Rachel White is a science writer and Randy Molina is a research
botanist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main St., Suite 400,
Portland, OR 97205.
Abstract
Nelson, Peter; White, Rachel; Molina, Randy. 2006. The Pacific Northwest
Research Station’s Biodiversity Initiative: collaborating for biodiversity management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-670. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 32 p.
The Pacific Northwest Research Station launched a Biodiversity Initiative
to assist natural resource professionals in integrating complex biodiversity
concepts into natural resource management processes. We canvassed clients
from various affiliations to determine the main challenges they face in biodiversity management, to define their information needs, and to understand
how best to deliver biodiversity information within a collaborative framework. The biodiversity management challenges that emerged included (1)
the lack of well-defined biodiversity management policies, (2) understanding
and quantifying the interaction effects between a number of factors (e.g.,
disturbance types, management practices) and biodiversity, (3) the lack
of applied biodiversity monitoring strategies, (4) difficulty in locating and
accessing biodiversity information, and (5) balancing conflicting values
relating to biodiversity. We also list the biodiversity information product
needs of clients, as well as preferred technology transfer methods, and we
discuss the future direction of the Biodiversity Initiative.
Keywords: Biological diversity, natural resource management,
biodiversity information, information needs assessment, resource managers,
Pacific Northwest.
This page has been left blank intentionally.
Document continues on next page.
.
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management
Introduction
In summer 2004, the Pacific Northwest Research (PNW) Station launched a
Biodiversity Initiative as part of the mission of the Focused Science Delivery
(FSD) Program (see sidebar). The goal of the initiative is to provide synthesized and policy-relevant biodiversity information products to FSD clients and
other information users. This goal will be achieved in two phases. The initial
scoping phase, reported in this document, involved working collaboratively
with diverse clients and stakeholders to identify biodiversity management
challenges and to assess biodiversity information needs. This scoping phase
informed the direction of the second phase of the initiative, in which management tools and information products are being developed to assist clients in
meeting their biodiversity management challenges. We discuss the impetus
and background for the initiative and then describe the results from our
scoping phase. We also provide a framework for setting priorities and imple-
Biodiversity is an
overarching concept,
menting product development for the initiative.
and thus acts as a
crosscutting theme
Why a Biodiversity Initiative?
in natural resource
management,
The concept of biodiversity is increasingly applied as a factor of interest and
analysis in natural resource management. Biodiversity is an overarching
concept, and thus acts as a crosscutting theme in natural resource manage-
spanning technical
and social realms.
ment, spanning technical and social realms. If biodiversity can be construed
as the variety of life and the processes that shaped them, and biodiversity
management can be understood as value-based human interactions with those
organisms and processes, we quickly realize that we are dealing with a vast
and complex topic area. The interaction between biological and social complexity makes biodiversity management a formidable challenge. Essentially
we are discussing the application of a conceptual framework to the grounded
realm of natural resource policy and management. And although the term
“biodiversity” is increasingly found in resource management scenarios and
issues, we struggle with the application of the concept. The Biodiversity
Initiative seeks to help bridge this gap; to make conceptual information
on biodiversity topics available for practical application in management
scenarios.
Scope and Direction of the Initiative
To capture the breadth and depth of biological and social issues surrounding
biodiversity management, the Biodiversity Initiative focused on meetings with
1
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670
The mission of the Focused Science Delivery Program is to enhance
the usefulness of scientific information. High-quality research already
exists, but often in a scattered array of sources. We pull together isolated
pieces of information and synthesize them into a whole conceptual
framework. We work closely with a wide variety of clients, and
promote partnerships and collaboration. By compiling information
specific to clients’ needs, we hope to strengthen decisionmaking processes by ensuring that policy decisions are based on an integrated
body of thought. Finally, we strive to identify ways to increase cooperation among researchers, political leaders, management specialists, and
the public as they search for solutions to complex resource management
problems.
a diverse range of clients and stakeholders in Oregon and Washington
(including federal and nonfederal land managers, private landowners, forestry
practitioners, scientists, and other natural resource professionals) to determine
the range of challenges faced in managing for biodiversity and the information
tools and products needed to meet those challenges. The initiative has sought
input from diverse clients with a wide variety of viewpoints to promote mutual
learning and understanding of the issues. We summarize client and stakeholder input from these meetings and synthesize that input into two main
sections: (1) primary biodiversity management challenges and (2) requested
biodiversity information products and technology transfer methods.
Since the initial scoping activity, the Biodiversity Initiative has focused on
developing working groups of collaborators and partners who will determine
the final products and work toward their completion. We realize that managing
biodiversity is a huge topic area with many interested clients, each with unique
information needs. A critical first step is working with our partners is to pare
down an overwhelming list of information needs to a priority set of tools and
products that resonate with a cross section of clients and can be accomplished
within the initiative’s timeframe (through 2006). Our progress in this vein is
presented here.
2
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management
We also recognize that information needs and tools for biodiversity management will continue well beyond the program’s timeframe. We hope that
many of the new working groups and partnerships will continue once they
have gained significant foothold and realize the benefits of collaboratively
provided, policy-relevant biodiversity information. Thus, the initiative will
make a significant effort to facilitate the building of lasting partnerships and
collaboration among the diverse set of stakeholders.
What Is Biodiversity?
Short for “biological diversity,” the term was formally introduced during the
first National Forum on BioDiversity in Washington, D.C. 1986 (Wilson 1997).
In a technical and empirical sense, biodiversity refers to the diversity of life in
all its forms and all its levels of organization, from fungi to western red cedar,
from microbes to mountain lions. Biodiversity includes an intricate array of
ecological patterns, processes, and contingent interactions. The complexity of
biodiversity makes it a conceptual entity—virtually impossible to define in its
entirety—yet it has emerged as an important issue in the conservation, management, and legislation of natural resources (McIntosh 2002).
According to Noss (1990), “A definition of biodiversity that is altogether
simple, comprehensive, and fully operational (i.e., responsive to real-life
management and regulatory questions) is unlikely to be found.” Noss suggested that instead of attempting to restrict the term via definition, we should
construct a “characterization of biodiversity that identifies the major components at several levels of organization.” Such a construct conceptualizes
biological diversity within a nested biological hierarchy that ranges in order
from genes, to species, to biotic communities or ecosystems, to landscapes. As
genes make up the details of a species, species make up the details of biotic
communities and so on. In this sense, biodiversity implies a holistic conceptual framework that stands in contrast to more traditional “species-by-species”
or “element-by-element” approaches of viewing the natural world and interpreting natural phenomena (Noss 1990).
To consider the variations and interactions among this hierarchy, Noss
incorporated three ecosystem attributes: composition, structure, and function.
Composition refers to distinct species, populations, or communities. Structure
refers to patterns or physical arrangements of systems across a landscape, for
example habitat complexity in the form of snags and down logs in a forest
3
Randy Molina
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670
Coral fungus (Ramaria araiospora). Fungi provide just one example of the variety and
complexity of life forms, and play an integral role in ecosystem processes, such as nutrient
cycling and decomposition.
stand. Function refers to the processes that shape compositional and structural attributes, such as natural disturbances, gene flow, and nutrient cycling.
Table 1 illustrates the relations between the nested biological hierarchy and
the three ecosystem attributes.
Noss’ conceptual biodiversity framework encourages a comprehensive
approach to biodiversity management and helps highlight the relationships
between the component parts. In addition, and relevant to this assessment, a
conceptual framework of biodiversity can provide guidance in highlighting
and categorizing information needs as well as assisting in biodiversity program implementation (e.g., in determining which attributes of an ecosystem
should be monitored) (Peck 1998).
Methods
We employed two information gathering approaches in the client scoping
phase by combining independent conversations with select clients (and
small groups of clients), and structured, interactive workshops attended by
representatives of diverse client groups. We chose to conduct a combination
of individually based conversations and workshops to provide a diversity
of interaction environments. Each format provides unique strengths in terms
4
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management
Table 1—Compositional, structural, and functional biodiversity at multiple biological
hierarchies
Biological level
of organization
Structural
Ecosystem attributes
Compositional
Landscape
Landscape pattern
Landscape types
Landscape processes
Ecosystem
Habitat structure
Communities,
ecosystems
Interspecific
interactions
Species
Population structure
Species, populations
Demographic
processes
Genetic
Genetic structure
Genes
Genetic processes
Functional
Source: Noss 1990.
of information gathering. For example, whereas individual conversations allow
for detailed discussions of client information needs, workshops provide
opportunities for group interaction and more synergistic idea generation.
Throughout our interactions with clients, we deliberately refrained from
providing an “official” definition of biodiversity. We opted to leave clients free
to use their own conception of the term as they encounter it in their work.
Individually Based Conversations
Seventy-eight informal conversations were conducted with 99 individuals via
telephone or in person with clients from a variety of sectors involved in natural
1
resource management. Clients were selected based on (1) existing relationships with the FSD Program and other Biodiversity Initiative partners and (2)
a “snowball” approach that allowed participating clients to recommend additional relevant stakeholders for participation. These selection methods allowed
us to interact with a broad range of clients and stakeholders from a network of
individuals involved in Pacific Northwest biodiversity management issues. We
felt that the conversations constituted a fair representation of the range of biodiversity management issues within a stakeholder network, and allowed us to
gather enough information to put forward meaningful and useful information
products.
Clients and stakeholders represented the following sectors: (1) industrial
private forest-land owners, (2) nonindustrial private forest-land owners, (3)
timber-related interest groups, (4) timberland investment groups, (5) conservation-oriented interest groups, (6) federal (Bureau of Land Management and
1
For logistical reasons, some conversation sessions included multiple clients from a single
sector.
5
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670
Forest Service) managers and natural resource specialists (i.e., biologists and
ecologists) at the forest and district levels as well as within the regional or state
offices, (7) members of Oregon and Washington “Biodiversity Councils,” and
(8) individuals from state-level natural resource management agencies in
Oregon and Washington (e.g., Washington Department of Natural Resources,
Oregon Department of Forestry, and Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife).
Conversations were generally unstructured to allow clients freedom to
articulate their specific interests and issues regarding biodiversity management. In addition, we sought more focused information on the following topic
areas in order to better understand clients’ biodiversity management challenges and information needs:
•
•
•
•
Although the primary
objective of the work-
•
•
shops was to hear
the management
•
challenges and
information needs
•
from diverse clients,
a secondary objective
Use, definition, and perception of the term biodiversity
Views on the role and importance of biodiversity in natural resource
management
Consideration of the most important issues relating to biodiversity and
natural resource management
Current sources and use of information on biodiversity management in
daily work and decisionmaking
Descriptions of current biodiversity information needs
Knowledge of research activities and products by U.S. Forest Service
PNW Station scientists relating to biodiversity management
Informational and organizational impediments to accessing and applying
biodiversity information for decisionmaking
Relationships of federal managers with nonfederal stakeholders with
regard to biodiversity management
Extensive notes were taken during conversations with clients and subse-
was to promote
mutual learning
quently analyzed to identify and characterize common themes and issues.
Those common themes and issues are discussed below.
among clients by
encouraging active
Workshops
listening to divergent
viewpoints on the
issues.
Four workshops were held, two each in Oregon (Bend and Eugene) and
Washington (Wenatchee and Olympia). We purposely chose locations on the
east and west sides of the Cascade Range to explore potential regional differences in terms of management challenges and geographically unique biodiversity information needs. Although the primary objective of the workshops
was to hear the management challenges and information needs from diverse
clients, a secondary objective was to promote mutual learning among clients
by encouraging active listening to divergent viewpoints on the issues. Thus,
6
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management
we invited clients who could represent many of the viewpoints that had been
articulated in our previous, individually based discussions. Fifty individuals
representing 25 organizations from the sectors noted above participated in the
four workshops. We do not view these 25 organizations as inclusive of all
interest groups or stakeholders involved in biodiversity management issues.
However, we felt that it was a fair representation of the range of interests that
Randy Molina
would allow us to gather the needed information to meet the objectives of the
scoping phase.
Workshops provided a forum for a wide variety of clients to voice the challenges they face
in managing for biodiversity, and to brainstorm ideas about what types of information
products would be most useful to them.
A professional facilitator conducted the workshops and provided a
nonadversarial environment for all clients to articulate their biodiversity
management challenges and information needs. Participants were informed in
the beginning that the workshops were not intended as forums to debate
issues, but instead were a means to gather information and promote partnerships to address biodiversity management challenges and solutions. Workshops addressed four primary questions: What are the main challenges you
face in managing for biological diversity? Where do you currently obtain your
science resources on biodiversity management? What information and specific
management tools do you need to meet the challenges you noted? and How
can we best work together to develop these products and continue to share
information on biodiversity management?
7
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670
An informal voting exercise was conducted at the end of each workshop
to help identify priority biodiversity information products from a list of topics
generated throughout the session. Notes were taken throughout the meetings
on flipcharts and by independent recorders. We summarized notes in terms of
common themes and issues across all the workshops and integrated them with
the results from the individually based conversations. Those common themes
and issues are discussed below.
Results and Discussion
This section summarizes and discusses the results of our individually based
discussions and workshops, and is divided into two main sections: (1) primary
biodiversity management challenges and (2) requested biodiversity information products and preferred technology transfer methods.
Clients articulated a range of challenges associated with biodiversity
management. We broadly categorize the most frequently cited challenges in
this section as follows:
•
The lack of well-defined biodiversity management policies, including:
• Biodiversity mandate in federal land management policies
•
•
•
•
•
Biodiversity mandate in private land management policies
Understanding and quantifying the interaction effects between a number
of factors (i.e., disturbance types, management practices) and biodiversity.
These factors include:
•
Resource management practices
•
Invasive species
•
Fire, forest health, and postfire logging
•
Restoration activities
The lack of applied biodiversity monitoring strategies
Difficulty in locating and accessing biodiversity information
Balancing conflicting values relating to biodiversity
Challenge 1: Lack of Well-Defined Biodiversity Management
Policies
There are currently no clear policy mandates that direct the management of
biodiversity. This was a frequently cited biodiversity management challenge.
Public and private forest managers face a variety of federal, state, and local
land management policies (i.e., statutes, regulations, planning documents)
that refer to the identification, conservation, or maintenance of biological
resources; yet there is no explicit mandate for “biodiversity management”
8
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management
per se. Across the mosaic of ownerships, landowners establish different management objectives and goals for their lands ranging along a gradient from the
production of primarily economic goods to complete preservation of ecosystems. Variation in land management goals and objectives leads to variation not
only in the types of problems and decisions managers encounter, but also a
diversity of information needs and decision-support tools (i.e., program
evaluation and monitoring tools).
In addition, land management philosophies are changing and becoming
more complex than they were a generation ago as science begins to probe and
unravel the interactions between human and ecological systems (Thomas
1999). This socioecological complexity has an impact on laws, regulations,
court decisions, and public perceptions. The lack of policy coherence on
biodiversity management leaves resource professionals to puzzle over disparate strategies for achieving social, ecological, and economic conditions.
The lack of policy
coherence on
biodiversity management leaves resource
professionals to
puzzle over disparate
strategies for
achieving social,
ecological, and
economic conditions.
Biodiversity mandates in federal land management policies—
Certain federal statutes and accompanying regulations contain provisions
that pertain, albeit somewhat indirectly, to biodiversity management. Clients
frequently cited both the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and, less
frequently, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as providing some guidance as
to biodiversity policy. Yet these statutes do not explicitly compel federal managers to conduct biodiversity management per se—instead, they tend to focus
on the species level within the biological hierarchy.
Congress passed the ESA in 1973 to strengthen the government’s ability
2
to protect imperiled wildlife and the habitat on which they depend. Although
it represents a landmark in natural resource policy, it embodies a species-byspecies approach that may now seem outdated (Norton 1998). In the years
since the passage of the ESA, an emphasis on habitats, ecosystem dynamics,
and complex interactions has substantially expanded our understanding of the
complexity of managing for natural resources (Norton 1998). Indeed, many
clients expressed dissatisfaction with single-species oriented policies, saying
these strategies oversimplify or even contradict the conceptual principles of
biodiversity management. Protecting individual species remains important,
but recognition that species exist within and interact with larger systems and
interconnected communities also has become important.
2
Endangered Species Act legislation can be accessed at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/
ESA.html.
9
Stuart White
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670
Blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus). Although protecting individual
species is still important, effective biodiversity management recognizes that each species exists within a larger ecosystem in connection
with many other species and processes.
The statutory requirements of the NFMA mandate the Forest Service to
provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities within a multiple-use
3
framework. As such, NFMA provides management safeguards for species at
risk of extinction or extirpation on Forest Service land. The diversity requirements of NFMA (along with ESA and other statutes) were a fundamental
policy component in the debate over the conservation of late-successional
forest ecosystems and appropriate levels of federal timber harvest in the Pacific
4
Northwest in the 1990s (Robbins 2004). The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP)
sought to resolve that debate over competing values by balancing commodity
5
production with the conservation of forest ecosystems. The conservation
strategies of the NWFP could be construed as de facto biodiversity management in that various attributes of ecosystems and species were addressed at
3
National Forest Management Act legislation can be accessed at: http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/
nfma/index1.html.
4
NFMA, the primary statute governing the administration of national forests, mandates the
assessment of forest lands and the development of a resource management plan based on
multiple-use, sustained-yield principles for each unit of the National Forest System. In
December 2004, the Forest Service released a final rule on NFMA that shifts conservation
emphasis from a species focus to an ecosystem focus. For more information on the new
NFMA rule see http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/index2.html.
5
Northwest Forest Plan documents and related information can be accessed at:
http://pnwin.nbii.gov/nwfp.html.
10
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management
several spatial scales. The NWFP ecosystem approach is notable for its creation of expansive landscape-scale reserve networks, its advocacy for adaptive
management schemes, its social and ecological monitoring frameworks, and
for its encouragement of interagency cooperation and planning. Also included
in the NWFP was a key provision that charged agency managers with evaluating the site-level impact of management activities on rare and little-known
species associated with late-successional forests. The survey and manage
program was cited by some clients as a valuable contributing factor to a more
comprehensive biodiversity management strategy found in the NWFP.
6
Biodiversity mandates in private land management—
We learned that clients from the industrial and nonindustrial private forestland sectors consider (1) state forest practices acts and rules (2) forest
management certification programs and (3) Habitat Conservation Plans
(authorized under the ESA) as providing policy direction on biodiversity
7
management issues. As is the case with federal lands, various regulations and
programs for private land address disparate elements of biodiversity, but there
is no explicit, comprehensive biodiversity management policy mandate.
States differ in the extent of their regulatory programs, with the Pacific
Northwest demonstrating the most extensive reliance on comprehensive forest
practices laws (Moffat and Cubbage 2001). Yet, although state forest practice
regulations are tending to become more complex for landowners, these
regulatory frameworks tend to focus on traditional strategies to conserve
resources such as soil, water, and wildlife. In Washington state, for example,
debate continues over proper regulation of logging as it relates to northern
spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) habitat and the economic costs of
setting aside riparian buffer zones. Comprehensive biodiversity planning, for
the most part, has not entered state forest practices policies.
Forest management certification programs may be emerging as the most
pertinent sources of explicit direction on biodiversity management. Landowners and timber companies can seek certification through several independent organizations such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or the
6
The survey and manage program was removed from the NWFP in March 2004.
7
Authorized under the ESA, Habitat Conservation Plans are agreements between landowners
and the federal government in which landowners agree to conservation measures in exchange
for a permit to “take” listed species in connection with economic activity. Thus, the
biodiversity components of Habitat Conservation Plans mimic those of the ESA policy
mandate, cited above.
11
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670
8
Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). Certification establishes a chain of
custody and assures consumers of compliance with various forest stewardship
standards and stipulations, at times including provisions for the conservation
of forest biodiversity. For example, an SFI objective regarding biological
diversity states that participating landowners shall: “Manage the quality and
distribution of wildlife habitats and contribute to the conservation of biological
diversity by developing and implementing stand- and landscape-level measures that promote habitat diversity and the conservation of forest plants and
9
animals including aquatic fauna” (SFB 2004). As we will discuss in later
sections, determining whether management activities are contributing to the
conservation of biological diversity is no simple task, and greatly depends on
what aspects of biodiversity one chooses to measure. In addition, the SFI
objective serves as a good example of how management strategies choose to
focus on select biodiversity attributes at select spatial dimensions.
Private forest owners and timber companies enter into these planning
activities for social and regulatory purposes. Certification and associated
biodiversity conservation measures can demonstrate publicly the compatibility
of corporate management activities with publicly valued ecological goals.
Secondly, corporations may see certification and Habitat Conservation Plans as
an opportunity to attain greater management flexibility than under traditional
regulatory frameworks (Loehle et al. 2002). But as our clients pointed out, the
benefits of undertaking such planning activities are not always clear, especially
in terms of financial return. Entering certification programs or Habitat Conservation Plans can be expensive and difficult to develop and implement. In
addition, confusion has built up around the fact that biodiversity requirements
differ between certification programs, and that these programs do not always
match up with state regulatory guidelines (Moffat and Cubbage 2001). These
problems are sufficiently pervasive as to potentially thwart biodiversity planning efforts.
8
For information on the FSC see http://www.fscus.org/. For information on the SFI see
http://www.aboutsfi.org/.
9
12
See http://www.aboutsfb.org/generalPDFs/SFBStandard2005-2009.pdf.
Tom Iraci
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management
Private forest owners may join a forest certification program to demonstrate
publicly the compatibility of their management activities with ecological goals.
Challenge 2: Understanding and Quantifying the Interaction
Effects Between a Number of Factors and Biodiversity.
Much of the challenge in incorporating biodiversity into management and
planning lies in understanding the complex relationships between disturbance
processes and biodiversity. Our clients discussed anthropogenic and “natural”
forces as factors that impact biodiversity. Many of these conversations can be
summed up as: “What is biodiversity? How are we impacting it? And, how do
we quantify that impact?”
Forest management practices—
We learned that many clients do not have a clear idea of the interaction
effects between forest management practices and biodiversity. This ambiguity
is certainly driven by the above discussion on conceptual complexity and
biodiversity policy mandates–absent a mandate, a manager, landowner,
or practitioner may not consider biodiversity as an element of concern in
resource management decisions. That being said, clients articulated a need for
policy-relevant information on the appropriate role of active management in
the conservation, restoration, or maintenance of biodiversity. The answers are
largely unknown and immensely complex. Natural resource issues tend to be
systems problems—complex and unpredictable, with multiple causes—and
tend to span both natural and social spheres (Holling et al. 1998). Whether the
13
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670
impact of a management action, such as timber harvest or grazing, poses a
“threat” to biodiversity is unknown unless one has adequate information,
including the capacity to assess the status of biodiversity prior to the management action. Thus, questions concerning the impacts of active management
on biodiversity essentially become monitoring, experimental, or prediction/
forecasting questions. A state employee involved in timber harvest programs
captured this sentiment: “We need clear information on the risks of managing
for simple (forest) structure and short rotations, and the effects on soil
productivity and (biodiversity).” And because of the inextricable link between
social and ecological values inherent in active management, interdisciplinary
modes of inquiry into the combined systems of nature and humans are needed
to gain enough information to formulate policy (Holling et al. 1998).
Invasive species—
We found that clients are challenged in understanding and quantifying the
interaction effects of native species and biodiversity. Invasive species may
have negative impacts on native biodiversity and ecosystem stability. Many
invasives possess adaptations that allow them to be superior competitors; and
they have been known to impact such ecosystem functions as productivity,
soil fertility, disturbance regimes, nutrient cycling, and decomposition (Peck
1998). Resource managers face information challenges regarding community
Steve Sutherland
resistances, competition with native species, eradication options, and how
different disturbances impact an area’s susceptibility to invasives.
Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa Lam.). Resource managers need more information on how invasive species affect
biodiversity, and what can be done about them.
14
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management
Fire, “forest health” and postfire recovery—
According to clients from all sectors, significant uncertainty surrounds the
relationship between wildfires, fire management practices, and elements of
biodiversity. Information deficits were noted in the following management
areas: fuels management/reduction, postfire logging, and fire suppression.
And although many managers and practitioners were cognizant of departures
(structural, compositional, and functional) from historical fire conditions,
many were uncertain how these changing ecological conditions affect the
complex components and elements of biodiversity.
For private landowners with commercial management goals, pressing
issues of “forest health” overlap with biodiversity questions, particularly on
drier landscapes east of the Cascade Range crest. Many clients manage their
lands under the premise that uncharacteristically large or severe fires pose a
threat to forest biodiversity, yet there are vast information gaps in this topic
area. When asked what issues “biodiversity” brings to mind, a member of
an east-side collaborative management group said: “Concern over fires, forest health and fuels reduction.” According to this participant, collaborative
decisionmaking groups need biologically relevant definitions of “forest
health” along with cogent and usable explanations of how various fire management practices affect biological diversity. For example, how can managers
develop effective fuels treatment plans that incorporate relevant information
on the impacts to biological resources?
As mentioned above, some clients viewed “biodiversity management” as
a potential threat to “forest health,” particularly if it meant adopting a “handsoff” (no active management) approach. In managing for pest and disease
outbreaks or reducing the fire susceptibility of a forest stand, managers
believed there may be tradeoffs between levels of biodiversity and amounts
of “risk,” often expressed in terms of possible economic loss. We found that
managers are seeking usable information on the appropriate balance (the
range of costs, benefits, and tradeoffs) between maintaining or restoring
natural ecological processes and managing for other values including timber.
Managers are looking to science to help explain and synthesize the differences
between “natural” and “unnatural” disturbance events in terms of their impacts
to biodiversity. A participant who works on the dry forests in Washington gave
voice to these types of questions:
Managers are looking
to science to help
explain and synthesize the differences
between “natural” and
“unnatural” disturbance events in terms
of their impacts to
biodiversity.
We have changed natural forest structure and composition.
There are consequences in fire behavior associated with these
changes. What are the appropriate structures, proportions and
15
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670
arrangement of forests? What are the ranges of carrying
capacities for a particular plant association? What are the
appropriate species and stocking levels for those sites? What
should landscape succession look like? We need a better way
to infer what direction we are heading.
Practitioners need current high-quality information about disturbance
dynamics as they work to achieve an effective balance between biodiversity
management and active management.
Clients indicated that they are also lacking pragmatic and usable information on the impacts of postfire logging on elements of biodiversity, particularly
in areas of high biological and social value such as late-successional and oldgrowth forest stands. In many of these cases, the questions revolved around
how the removal of burned material would impact structural, compositional,
and functional elements of those stands and landscapes. An Oregon conservation advocate said, “In terms of on-the-ground issues, salvage logging, particularly within legacy rich young stands, is critical. These stands are rare at
the landscape scale and are being converted to a common habitat type.”
Certain structural elements are commonly cited as important for biodiversity
including cavity trees, coarse woody debris, spatial heterogeneity in the overstory and understory, and legacies (Carey 2003), yet many of these studies
have been conducted in wet, less fire-prone forest types, making their applicability to dry forest types uncertain. On a postfire landscape, a manager proposing a salvage logging operation may not have the appropriate (or relevant)
information to justify potential impacts to these habitat elements. Federal managers expressed the concern that they do not have the proper tools to understand and prioritize these types of complex decisions. One participant said,
“How have we changed the system? How will it respond? If you stay within
the range of natural variability, the system will function. How do you translate
these issues to the ‘frontlines’ (i.e., to managers in the field)?”
Restoration activities—
Clients described challenges that accompany efforts to restore biodiversity
within forest systems. Managers are challenged in their attempts to design
silvicultural prescriptions that will restore various elements of biodiversity
to forest stands and landscapes. In some cases, the restoration objective is
not always clear—for example, how does a manager address the variability
ranges for specific biodiversity attributes? Any restoration target will fluctuate
within a range, and defining an appropriate range is a tricky and subjective
16
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management
process (Peck 1998) that can be better informed by science but not necessarily “solved.” One manager captured the sentiment of those involved in
emerging biodiversity management questions: “How do we restore habitat
types to achieve landscape diversity? How do we restore late-successional
forests? We have a lot of learning to do.” Still, results from experimental
manipulations of forest stands have been promising. Research has shown
that intentional landscape management can provide a strategy for restoring
ecosystems and conserving biodiversity (Carey 2003). The key is to conduct
Tom Iraci
relevant research and then to provide that information to those seeking to
implement strategic restoration efforts across forested landscapes.
Results from experimental manipulations of forest stands have shown that
careful landscape management can help restore ecosystems and conserve
biodiversity.
Challenge 3: The Lack of Applied Biodiversity Monitoring
Strategies
Many managers echoed a familiar sentiment when attempting to implement
biodiversity management strategies, “How do we know if our goals are being
met? How do we know what to measure?” We found that managers feel that
they lack sufficient tools and information including biodiversity management
standards (goals and objectives), benchmarks for establishing trends or assessing ecosystem condition, and effective biodiversity monitoring tools.
17
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670
Biodiversity monitoring allows managers to assess the effectiveness of
biodiversity conservation strategies and measure their performance. Biodiversity monitoring has been tangentially emphasized under federal land
management plans such as the NWFP, and is relevant across all land ownerships and sectors. A regional Forest Service employee familiar with NWFP
monitoring explained the gap in biodiversity monitoring information, as
follows:
We are doing a lot of things that would be considered as
biodiversity monitoring. What is missing is the overall framework. We need to make biodiversity concrete. Ecosystems are
complicated. We need to break it down into pieces. We don’t
know enough to monitor all the pieces. We need to say: “this
is what we think constitute all the elements of biodiversity”
and develop that framework, from genes to communities to
landscapes.
Clients outside the federal sector also cited the need for flexible and
effective biodiversity monitoring strategies. A state employee with a natural
resource agency in the state of Oregon said: “What we are looking for in the
big picture is a coarse-filter/fine-filter approach with indicators that allow us to
look at all species, not just a selected subset . . .Where are the holes in the big
picture?”
The “big picture” includes numerous biological components arrayed and
layered throughout multiple spatial and temporal scales. Many of our scoping
conversations revolved around (1) the lack of a standardized process and set
of tools for biodiversity monitoring and (2) uncertainty as to the most appropriate spatial scale for monitoring biological phenomena. How should managers select reasonable biodiversity indicators? Can indicators be used to assess
ecosystem functionality? What is the utility and potential role of habitat
surrogates? Our conversations and workshops left many of these types of
questions unanswered, and exposed a clear need for specific guidance on
biodiversity measuring, monitoring, and assessment systems.
Challenge 4: Difficulty in Locating and Accessing Biodiversity
Information
In terms of data management, managers relayed that there were no consistent
standards across management units and between agencies, making biodiversity management and information sharing a challenge. Data and other
types of information on the vast range of biodiversity elements could be
18
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management
considered patchy at best. The existing data and information are housed in a
scattered array of sources and expressed in differing metrics. When asked
where they currently seek information on biodiversity topics, clients listed a
wide range—from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, to an assortment of
publicly available databases, to university extension services, to in-house
corporate or agency data sources.
The complex nature of biodiversity information comes from the underlying intricacies of the biological elements and processes involved in its expression—all of which continually evolve and interact. The biological informational complexity is compounded by the complexity of human systems used to
manage it. The mechanisms used to organize, store, present, and deliver data
and information can be nearly as diverse as the ecological components they
seek to document and explain. In addition, biological data can involve conflicts of interest, or can get mired in political or commercial entanglements
(Schnase et al. 1997). The lack of cooperation between various agencies was
identified at our workshops as being a hindrance to managing for biodiversity.
For an information system to be useful and effective, it must efficiently manage complexity while delivering information within an accessible framework.
Challenge 5: Balancing Conflicting Values Relating to Biodiversity
We found that the social dimension of biodiversity presented challenges for
clients as they sought to balance often competing sets of values. We heard that
the concept of biodiversity has become a “conservation tool” that is used in
polarizing debates over natural resource management decisions. A timber sale
planner on a national forest stated: “We hear the term biodiversity from (interest) groups. The term has a sociopolitical meaning. It drives agendas.” Another
participant put it bluntly: “Biodiversity management shuts down forests,
period.” Although these statements are difficult to interpret, it is clear that the
term biodiversity can connote powerful reactions in certain stakeholders.
Where biodiversity management is understood as the equivalent of “no active
management,” it becomes a threat to other social values.
Biodiversity management attracts a certain amount of conflict by being
both a scientific concept and a social cause for conservation (Takacs 1996).
Debate over often competing activities such as public lands recreation, resource use and jobs for people, the preservation of wildlife habitat or endangered species, or commercial development are infused with social values and
can create resistance or divisiveness in natural resource and biodiversity
19
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670
management. Therefore, although the idea of consciously managing for
biodiversity is evolving in our natural resource professions, there is dispute
over why or how to accomplish this, given widely varying human ideals,
preferences, and needs (Norton 2000). This variation in values adds complex-
Mark Reid
ity to management and complicates the formulation of policy.
Social debate over how land should be used—for recreation, preservation of wildlife habitat, or commercial development, for example—can cause divisiveness in
natural resource and biodiversity management.
We found that many clients from the private sector are interested in the possibility of creating market-based economic incentives to meet society’s demand
for biodiversity values. For example, landowners could receive compensation
for creating monetized units of biodiversity in the form of tax credits. Yet
creating market-based biodiversity incentive systems is certainly both theoretically and pragmatically challenging, particularly the pricing of biodiversity
values. One participant involved in creating biodiversity market incentives
asked: “How do you monetize the biodiversity values that you are creating
(through forestry)? What are the appropriate metrics for creating a market?”
The limiting factor, common to many biodiversity challenges, lies in identifying practical and effective ways to characterize, measure, and catalog elements
of biodiversity.
For clients representing the commercial forestry sectors, biodiversity
management was often construed as a constraint on economic objectives.
20
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management
Private landowners also told us that, given the vast range of biodiversity
elements, different components of biodiversity should be provided by different landowners according to their management objectives. For example,
landowners with economic management emphases could provide biodiversity
values associated with managed forests. One private timberland manager
captured the tone of these discussions:
We must deal with [biodiversity] within legal, political, and
social contexts. We need to understand the tradeoffs, and the
values that managed lands contribute to biodiversity conservation. People [disregard the role that] intensively managed
lands [play in] protecting rare species, species sites, and
species diversity. There is a much larger role for intensively
managed stands than can be understood by scientists, conservationists, and the public.
Emerging research is beginning to look at the contribution of managed
lands to the maintenance and conservation of biodiversity. A number of
clients named this research area as their primary biodiversity information
need. One method of delineating the role of managed lands in resource management is through the use of Habitat Conservation Plans, in which small
landowners have developed rating systems that recognize the value of different forest management strategies in terms of biodiversity conservation. Yet
there remains a need for policy-relevant scientific information on the contributions managed lands make to overall biodiversity. Nonindustrial private landowners are unsure as to where they stand in the evolving resource management trend toward biodiversity management—they recognize that small
private forest lands, in sum, provide a rich vein of biodiversity, particularly
through recent policies that have set aside riparian areas and listed species
habitat. Yet they are fearful that biodiversity management could threaten them
commercially. One participant said, “Private landowners are confused by the
term biodiversity. What does this mean in terms of new rules, new restrictions?
For fiber producers, does this mean we will need to do an inventory of all
plants and animals?”
Larger private landowners share the same concerns over the implications
of biodiversity management. For the private forestry sector, the dilemma
revolves around how they can contribute to biodiversity conservation while
surviving in the forestry business. For example, landowners and researchers
associated with the Sustainable Forestry Initiative are conducting studies and
21
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670
compiling information to assess how industrially managed lands contribute to
biodiversity conservation. At this time, an effective and usable set of biological criteria to make this assessment is lacking. And for private landowners,
whose livelihoods can depend on the resources in these forests, biodiversity
management must be made practical for it to be effective.
Workshop participants frequently stated that barriers to biodiversity
management are more social and economic than biological. To address this,
some clients requested that the Biodiversity Initiative begin to quantify some
of these social and economic values. Ideally this would also involve integrating local and traditional knowledge—perhaps by partnering with local groups
such as tribal agencies, watershed councils, or conservation districts—which
would allow the initiative to tap into the social capital available through
grassroots networks.
One of the main goals
of the Biodiversity
Initiative is to devise,
develop, and deliver
products that will be
accessible to diverse
social worlds and
fulfill the information
requirements of each.
Information Product Needs
One of the main goals of the Biodiversity Initiative is to devise, develop, and
deliver products that will be accessible to diverse social worlds and fulfill the
information requirements of each. Several information products were repeatedly requested during our information-gathering phase, although there was
not always a comfortable fit between the products requested and the capabilities of this initiative. Therefore, based on available resources, client interest,
and opportunities for collaboration, we have condensed the list of requested
products to those the initiative may effectively address.
Central Web-Based Clearinghouse for Biodiversity Information
and Resources
To address the challenge of information management, many people requested
a single point of access to biodiversity information and associated resources.
This point of access, which would most likely be Web based, could include
the following types of resources and information:
•
•
•
•
•
22
Current biodiversity literature, databases, and Web sites
A master list of institutions, researchers, agencies, and groups working on
biodiversity issues
Information on funding sources and available grants
Species and population information (natural history, geographical range,
distribution, rare and lesser known species, species viability, specieshabitat associations)
Spatially explicit data on community/ecosystem condition and trends
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management
Syntheses on Specific Biodiversity Topics
Clients, particularly managers involved in implementing biodiversity management strategies, requested summarized and synthesized information on a
variety of biodiversity management topics. The following information need
areas were mentioned:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Natural history, abundance, and risk status of various species
Genetic information on organisms in the Pacific Northwest
Information on how to propagate endangered plants
A synthesis of survey and manage program findings
Summaries and syntheses of existing biodiversity literature, research
topics, and research activities
Summaries of broad areas of agreement and disagreement on critical
biodiversity topics
Interim reporting on biodiversity research efforts, prior to publication
Syntheses of biodiversity conservation and management strategies
Issues specific to the east side of the Cascade Range: range management,
invasive species, fragmented habitat, habitat degradation, successional
changes, fire, sage grouse
Highlights of on-the-ground success stories, especially those that show
relations among economics, social issues, environmental health, and
biodiversity
Case studies or models of projects
Information on Disturbance Effects
Clients expressed the need for concise, reliable, and policy-relevant syntheses
on disturbance-biodiversity interactions including, but not limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Invasive species
Fire—historical range of variability; identification of fire-associated
species; the impacts of suppression, prescribed burning, and postfire
logging (salvage) on measurable/observable elements of biodiversity
Effects of thinning and other silvicultural methods on biodiversity
elements including species groups and landscape condition
The implications of “no management” for elements of biodiversity
Mitigating the stressor effects of logging on elements of biodiversity
Using silvicultural methods to restore particular elements of biodiversity
(i.e., developing late-successional characteristics)
Socioeconomic/biological tradeoffs involved in active management within
disturbance-based ecosystems
23
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670
Development of Monitoring Metrics and Assessment Tools
Clients are seeking specific scientific guidance on biodiversity monitoring,
measuring, and assessment techniques. The Biodiversity Initiative planning
team acknowledges the capacity challenge in formulating such a complex and
multilayered monitoring module and currently lacks the resources to take this
on. However, smaller steps can be taken, and the initiative could take on a
facilitative role in this respect. Some examples of potential starting points
include:
•
•
•
•
•
Cataloging, summarizing, and analyzing existing biodiversity monitoring
systems and strategies
Generating and defining specific indicators for biodiversity monitoring
Creating opportunities to collaborate with various agencies to explore
issues involving monitoring and assessment, such as hosting client
workshops or fostering cooperative efforts
Creating tools that assist in the development of metrics for measuring,
assessing, and monitoring biodiversity
•
Customize those tools to proper spatial scales
•
Customize those tools for different land ownerships
Provide analyses and evaluation of how the NWFP and other federal land
management plans are performing in terms of biodiversity management
Implementation Tools
Clients are seeking information products that will support the implementation
of biodiversity planning and management strategies. This includes frequent
requests for the following types of information subjects:
•
•
•
•
24
Existing templates and case studies of applied biodiversity management
Tools that allow managers to assess the efficacy of existing biodiversity
strategies with benchmark strategies
Implementing the “fine/coarse filter” biodiversity management approach;
analyze the effectiveness of the survey and manage program as a
biodiversity management approach; provide biodiversity conservation
strategies and recommendations for the NWFP area; discuss a replacement
for the fine-filter survey and manage approach; address biodiversity
management within the Special Status Species Program
Provide specific decision-support tools for national forest planning that
address biodiversity management
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management
Quantification of Social and Economic Values
As discussed above, social and economic concerns are intertwined with the
technical aspects of biodiversity management. Clients requested information
products and support in designing and quantifying variables associated with
these values. They asked specifically for:
•
•
•
•
Focused information on “market-based” (nonregulatory) biodiversity
conservation programs
Information on the economic aspects and benefits of biodiversity
Traditional biodiversity knowledge or conservation methodologies
outside the conventional scientific literature
Tools and models that are able to quantify the biodiversity value of
different land ownerships
Technology Transfer Methods
We found that clients prefer a variety of information products and delivery
methods including the following.
Workshops, Field Trips, or Panels
Managers and practitioners believe face-to-face interactions with scientific
information providers provide them with the opportunity to hear summaries
and interim reporting on biodiversity studies. Direct interaction with researchers is particularly useful because managers often seek information on
timelines that are shorter than the typical schedule of research, printing, and
dissemination of research results. Clients also believe that face-to-face interactions allow researchers to interact with one another to discuss and indicate
where there are issues of agreement as well as disagreement on biodiversity
management issues.
Traditional Printed Materials
Many clients favored the access and utility of written materials and requested
biodiversity literature in a variety of published formats including peerreviewed scientific and professional journals, Science Findings, Science
Updates, and General Technical Reports. Some clients requested more
simplified information products such as brochures, fact sheets, posters,
and children’s education materials.
25
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670
Models and Decision-Support Tools
Computer models can be useful in addressing single or multiple species, for
projecting disturbance regimes, or in decision support. The following types
were requested:
•
•
•
•
Conceptual ecological and socioeconomic evaluative planning models
10
(see the Coastal Landscape Analysis and Modeling Study )
Risk assessment tools, methods, protocols, and approaches for
biodiversity management
User-friendly, effective, habitat models relating to the status of
biodiversity
Models associated with dead wood management as it relates to
11
biodiversity management (such as DECaid )
Biodiversity Management Implementation Tools
Many clients requested decision-support tools to facilitate and improve the
implementation of biodiversity management strategies. These tools include
such things as biodiversity monitoring protocols, “biodiversity management”
(i.e., taxonomic) checklists, model user guides, and NEPA biodiversity checklists and prioritization schemes for biodiversity restoration activities. Also
requested were summaries of biodiversity definitions as well as conceptual
portrayals of biodiversity.
Initiative Direction
In February 2005, we held a biodiversity workshop with invited speakers to
synthesize several of the issues presented above. Proceedings of review
articles from this workshop will be published in the journal Northwestern
12
Naturalist in 2006.
Another product of the workshop was a poster, shown at a biodiversity
conference in France in April 2005. Our coordinated scoping and comprehensive vision of biodiversity appears novel worldwide. Advances made by the
PNW Station Biodiversity Initiative will likely be of great interest to developing global programs.
10
11
12
26
See http://www.fsl.orst.edu/clams/.
See http://wwwnotes.fs.fed.us:81/pnw/DecAID/DecAID.nsf.
This should be one of the first products available from the initiative.
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management
In April 2005, we held a followup workshop to present the results of our
scoping activities to a representative group of clients and stakeholders to
solicit input on a set of potential collaborative activities and products. It is
important to realize that the PNW Station does not have the capacity to take
on each of the managerial challenges and related products. The major objective of this followup workshop was to select some key focus areas for product
development. After considerable discussion, the clients agreed to pursue the
following issues.
Small Woodlot Owner Concerns
This client group, which includes nonindustrial private landowners, is diverse
and experiences unique challenges associated with biodiversity management.
Given the thousands of potential constituents, it is important to work closely
with representative groups or associations as well as with the Oregon and
Washington State Extension Services. Our strategy is to convene a small
workgroup to explore more closely the biodiversity information and product
needs of this client group and, most importantly, decide on a strategy to
develop and disseminate information. We anticipate possible workshops and
short synthesis publications uniquely catered to meet their needs.
Central Clearinghouse or Web Portal for Biodiversity
Information
This product, which would collect, classify, and distribute biodiversity information, was requested at all client workshops. We have organized a workgroup to examine this need, with Oregon State University’s Institute for
Natural Resources (http://inr.oregonstate.edu/) taking the lead. The major
objective of the institute is to deliver science information to Oregon’s leaders
and publics to help inform decisions on management of the state’s natural
resources. The institute also houses Oregon’s Natural Heritage Program. Thus,
the institute is uniquely suited to lead the effort for a biodiversity information
clearinghouse. The workgroup will explore potential ways to organize and
frame biodiversity information and then actively seek collaboration among the
dozens of groups involved in biodiversity management projects in Oregon
and Washington to ensure widespread participation and usefulness.
27
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670
Monitoring
Developing biodiversity monitoring approaches and strategies represents a
difficult challenge for practitioners involved in biodiversity management.
Biodiversity management objectives vary widely among clients, often differing substantially in scope and scale. We will convene a workgroup to discuss
common interests and share information on current biodiversity monitoring
activities, particularly by Oregon and Washington state agencies. The workgroup will explore the development and use of biodiversity monitoring
Collaboratively understanding how various
ownerships, from
private to state and
federal, contribute to
present (and future)
regional biodiversity
is an opportunity
worth pursuing.
approaches. It will also consider if multiple groups with multiple management objectives could operate under one biodiversity monitoring framework.
Collaboratively understanding how various ownerships, from private to state
and federal, contribute to present (and future) regional biodiversity is an
opportunity worth pursuing.
Workshops, Conferences, and Syntheses
We are in the beginning stages of identifying key issues around which to
organize additional biodiversity workshops and syntheses products. As we
work to build collaborative partnerships and capacity we expect our list of
biodiversity products to grow. At this time we are planning two major regional
meetings in 2006 to deal with many of the disturbance-biodiversity interaction
concerns voiced by our clients. One workshop, hosted by the University of
Washington, Department of Urban Horticulture, will focus on the impact
of invasive plant species on the biodiversity of Oregon and Washington. A
second, organized through Oregon State University, will examine crosscutting
themes of a variety of social, economic, and ecological factors (e.g., fire,
thinning, climate change, and disease) in relation to biodiversity management.
This conference will emphasize the availability of management tools and
showcase on-the-ground examples of managing to meet different biodiversity
objectives in Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Proceedings will follow from each
meeting so that the information will be available to a wide audience of professionals and the public.
We have also embarked on four synthesis products to meet several major
information needs. One piece will articulate biodiversity within a conceptual
framework. This includes providing clear, concise sets of key definitions
along with a list of potential indicators or surrogates for use in biodiversity
monitoring. As our scoping process revealed, defining and conceptualizing
biodiversity and related principles of biodiversity management is essential for
28
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management
effective communication and successful information transfer. A second synthesis will provide guidelines to managers and researchers on the use of
citizen volunteers to help in the actual monitoring of biological resources,
including biodiversity. Such inclusion of and participation by the public
provides excellent opportunities for developing shared visions of biodiversity
goals and ownership of management outcomes. A third synthesis will summarize the main outcomes and results from the survey and manage program.
Many valuable ecological and practical management lessons were learned
from this regionwide conservation program, and results will be important to
the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management programs for sensitive
and special status species. To further address the management challenges
brought forth from the survey and manage program, a fourth synthesis will
explore in detail alternative approaches for the conservation of rare or littleknown species. This book synthesis will have chapters on issues of species
rarity, the unique challenges of little-known species, social and economic
aspects of conservation management, legal considerations, setting goals and
objectives, descriptions of various approaches (e.g., fine- and coarse-filter
approaches, and combinations thereof) including their strengths and weaknesses, management implementation considerations, and finally a process to
help managers select an approach (or approaches) to meet their conservation
Tom Iraci
objectives.
The demand for natural resources, whether for economic or social gain, means a balance
must be struck between biodiversity objectives and maintaining values desired by the
public.
29
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670
Concluding Remarks
As our results indicate, the challenges of managing for biodiversity are numerous and complex. Many of the challenges come from different perceptions
among publics about what “biodiversity” means and how the word itself is
used in a social or political context. Much of the complexity derives from the
daunting number of taxa, their interactions, and the functions they perform
in our diverse array of ecosystems. We know that we cannot measure and
monitor all organisms and ecosystem processes, so we are left to find a set
of indicators or surrogates that will provide meaningful information about
the large set of biodiversity attributes we seek to maintain. The demand for
use of our natural resources, whether for economic or other social gain,
means a balance must be struck between managing these resources to meet
biodiversity objectives and maintaining values desired by the public. We hope
our Biodiversity Initiative will provide an impetus to facilitate mutual understanding of our biodiversity goals and develop long-term partnerships to see
them through. Progress and results of the initiative will be posted at the PNW
Station Web site (http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/).
Acknowledgments
Figure on cover was created by Kathryn Ronnenberg. We also thank Dede
Olson, Gary Benson, and Gordon Bradley for reviewing a previous draft of
this manuscript.
Literature Cited
Carey, A.B. 2003. Managing for wildlife: a key component for social acceptance of compatible forest management. In: Monserud, R.A.; Haynes,
R.W.; Johnson, A.C., eds. Compatible forest management. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 401-425.
Holling, C.S.; Berkes, F.; Folke, C. 1998. Science, sustainability, and resource management. In: Berkes, F.; Folke, C.; Colding, J., eds. Linking
social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press: 342-362.
30
The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Biodiversity Initative: Collaborating for Biodiversity Management
Loehle, C.; MacCracken, J.G.; Runde, D.; Hicks, L. 2002. Forest management at landscape scales: solving the problems. Journal of Forestry. 100:
25-33.
McIntosh, R.P. 2002. Ecological science, philosophy, and ecological ethics.
In: Ouderkirk, W.; Hill, J., eds. Land, value, community. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press: 59-83.
Moffat, S.O.; Cubbage, F.W. 2001. Regional forestry practices and forest
management certification. In: Pelkki, M.H., ed. Hardwoods—an underdeveloped resource? Proceedings, annual meeting of Southern Forest
Economics Workers. Monticello, AR: University of Arkansas, Arkansas
Forest Resources Center: 47-52.
Norton, B.G. 1998. Biological resources and endangered species: history,
values, and policy. In: Guruswamy, D.; McNeely, J.A., eds. Protection of
global biodiversity: converging strategies. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press: 247-264.
Norton, B.G. 2000. Biodiversity and environmental values: in search of
a universal earth ethic. Biodiversity and Conservation. 9: 1029-1044.
Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical
approach. Conservation Biology. 4(4): 355-364.
Peck, S. 1998. Planning for biodiversity: issues and examples. Covelo, CA:
Island Press. 221 p.
Robbins, W.G. 2004. Landscapes of conflict: the Oregon story, 1940-2000.
Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 414 p.
Schnase, J.L.; Lane, M.A.; Bowker, G.C.; Star, S.L.; Silberschatz, A. 1997.
Building the next-generation biological-information infrastructure. In:
Raven, P.H., ed. Nature and human society: the quest for a sustainable
world. Washington, DC: National Academy Press: 291-300.
The Sustainable Forestry Initiative Sustainable Forestry Board [SFB]; the
American Forest & Paper Association [AF&PA]. 2004. Sustainable
Forestry Initiative Standard 2005-2009, Objective 4. Arlington, VA. 28 p.
31
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-670
Takacs, D. 1996. The idea of biodiversity. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press. 393 p.
Thomas, J.W. 1999. Learning from the past and moving to the future. In:
Johnson, N.K.; Swanson, F.; Herring, M.; Greene, S., eds. Bioregional
assessments: science at the crossroads of management and policy.
Covelo, CA: Island Press: 11-25.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1994a. Final supplement
environmental impact statement on management of habitat for latesuccessional and old-growth forest related species within the range
of the northern spotted owl. [Place of publication unknown]. 2 vol.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1994b. Record of decision for
amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning
documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. [Place of publication unknown]. 74 p. [plus attachment A: standards and guidelines].
Wilson, E.O. 1997. The creation of biodiversity. In: Raven, P.H., ed. Nature
and human society: the quest for a sustainable world. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press: 22-29.
32
This page has been left blank intentionally.
Document continues on next page.
.
This page has been left blank intentionally.
Document continues on next page.
.
Pacific Northwest Research Station
Web site
Telephone
Publication requests
FAX
E-mail
Mailing address
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw
(503) 808-2592
(503) 808-2138
(503) 808-2130
pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us
Publications Distribution
Pacific Northwest Research Station
P.O. Box 3890
Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Pacific Northwest Research Station
333 S.W. First Avenue
P.O. Box 3890
Portland, OR 97208-3890
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300